You rejected the Apostle Paul, cited the Jefferson Bible, and pivoted to iconography halos when the argument fell apart.

That’s not exposing my myopia. That’s you admitting you don’t have a coherent theological framework, just a grab bag of alternative theories that let you dismiss anything inconvenient.

Reformed Christianity has 2,000 years of tested theology, confessional standards, and a coherent hermeneutic. You’ve got Jefferson’s scissors and conspiracy theories about pole flips.

Call me railroaded all you want. At least I’m on tracks that go somewhere

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I mean, that's true. I reject Paul. Jefferson had a good idea. It's not the ultimate idea ever but it's a good one. You made no argument whatsoever other than fiat bullshit for why the authority of the apostles is valid. Your myopia causes you to be unable to see that.

It's not a conspiracy theory. Maybe you should spend time reading declassified documents. Einstein seemed to think Hapgood's theory was possessed of great scientific merit. It's called doing due diligence. It's called recognizing the law of diminishing marginal returns. You can study King James Bible or whatever version you like till you're blue in the face but until you study every religion looking for common ground under every rock, you'll never know what else is out there.

That's the lesson of the camel and the eye of the needle but, again, modern Christians typically don't get that lesson. They say "How the hell could a camel fit through an eye of a needle?" and then move on, harboring confusion.

You reject Paul because accepting him requires submission to authority you don’t like. That’s not scholarship. That’s rebellion.

Christ commissioned Paul. Peter called his writings Scripture. The Church received them for 2,000 years. You dismissed it because you have no counter.

Hapgood and comparative religion aren’t theology. They’re distractions letting you build bespoke spirituality while staying autonomous.

The camel and needle isn’t hidden wisdom. Christ said wealth makes salvation humanly impossible, but with God all things are possible. The disciples got it. You’re inventing mystery where clarity exists.

I reject authority. I accept truth but not authority. Also, I guess you missed it, but Christ was a rebel, so, thank you for the comp.

Paul's words contradict Christ's words so I'm going with Christ, not Paul. I don't care what Peter called his writings. Those are the weakest arguments ever, and yes, I have counters but you won't consume my research because you don't understand the eye of the needle parable. It's not about wealth. It's about attachments and the willingness to relinquish them in order to explore and learn. It wasn't about material wealth. That was a metaphor.

I don't know what your concept of "comparative religion" means in your head but it's probably only somewhat close to what I'm doing. Hapgood is just one piece of the puzzle.

Christ wasn’t a rebel against authority. He is the Authority. He submitted perfectly to the Father and fulfilled the Law. You’re confusing righteousness with rebellion.

‘

“I reject authority but accept truth” is incoherent. Truth has a source. If Christ is truth, He’s also Lord. You can’t have one without the other. You want Jesus as life coach, not King.

Paul’s words don’t contradict Christ’s. You just reject the interpretive framework Christ gave through His commissioned Apostles. That’s not fidelity to Jesus. That’s you deciding you know better than the Church He built.

The needle parable is about wealth because Christ said “How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom” (Mark 10:23). The disciples asked ‘Who then can be saved?’ because they understood He meant material wealth. You’re the one adding layers.

You don’t have research. You have a worldview that requires you to dismiss anything that demands submission. That’s not seeking truth. That’s seeking autonomy.

Christ is Lord or He’s nothing. Repent and submit, or stop pretending you follow Him

Tell that to the Pharisees and Romans

Also, you just betrayed your lack of due diligence on my perspective.

Surrender/submission to the will of God is how the 3rd eye is activated.

If you've ever checked out my podcast guest appearances you'd know that.

Before this conversation I might have. After this, I’ll pass. Thanks for the offer though

Ephesians 4:18

You can’t quote Paul to defend rejecting Paul. That’s not an argument. That’s irony.

Broken clock

Even a broken clock assumes time exists objectively.

You reject objective authority but keep appealing to Scripture when it’s convenient.

Pick one

I already told you.

I reject authority.

I accept truth.

You conflate the two because it is convenient to outsource your due diligence to some "daddy".

Truth without authority is just your opinion with a halo.

If truth exists objectively, it has a source. That source has authority whether you acknowledge it or not.

You’re not rejecting authority. You’re just crowning yourself as the final arbiter of what’s true. That’s not freedom. That’s the oldest rebellion in the book.

“You will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

How exactly do you think we're supposed to ascend...by NOT becoming more God-like?

What do you think John 14:12 is about?

Following Christ doesn't mean "being a follower".

It means doing what Christ did: seeking truth wherever it could be found, whether that was with the Druids, Egyptians, Hindus, Buddhists, Nagas, Essenes, or somewhere else entirely.

Trailblazers are followers of Christ, not lemmings.

You’re asserting that truth can be found “wherever”without accounting for how you distinguish truth from error. By what standard do you evaluate the Druids against the Egyptians against Christ? You’ve made yourself the ultimate authority while claiming to reject authority. That’s incoherent. Every claim you make about seeking truth presupposes logical absolutes, moral standards, and the reliability of revelation, none of which your eclectic syncretism can ground. You’re standing on Christian assumptions to deny Christianity.

John 14:12 doesn’t teach self deification. It teaches that believers would do greater works in extent through the power of the risen Christ and the Spirit He sent.

By what standard? What the hell are you talking about?

I read the research that others have done.

I carry that in my mind without judgement as I continue researching.

This is where you and I part ways because you pick everything apart before a case can be built.

If you come into the kitchen when the cook is on step 1 and declare that the recipe he's cooking is shit, you haven't offered a valid criticism because you didn't actually sample what he was cooking.

"Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen. Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring. The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"

"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

You're afraid to empty your cup and sample what I'm brewing which ir ironic because the Bible tells you explicitly not to be afraid over 100 times.

You can’t reject all authority and accept truth. To claim anything is true, you’re assuming laws of logic, uniformity of nature, and standards to judge claims.

Where do those come from in your worldview? You’re borrowing from the Christian framework to argue against it. You say “I accept truth” but won’t answer to the God who grounds truth, logic, and intelligibility itself. That’s not independence. That’s theft. You can’t account for the preconditions of the argument you’re making. I can. You’re not rejecting authority. You’re suppressing the truth in unrighteousness while using the tools it provides. Romans 1:18-20.

That must be why you're enlightened and I'm not.

What is photismos?

You’re not arguing theology anymore. You’re just flexing Greek vocabulary to avoid the point.

St. Justin Martyr First Apology chapter 61

You’re citing a Church Father who affirmed the creeds, submitted to apostolic teaching, and died for the exclusive claims of Christ. He’d reject everything you’re arguing.

Stop strip mining patristic sources for quotes that seem to support you while ignoring their entire framework.

i think you're missing the point of Pauls teaching in Corinthians.

My understanding is that he rejects the dominionist argument of salvation by works (ie, raising a righteous family, building the Christian community) and instead emphasizes the it is ONLY by our faith in Him that we are saved.

Dont sleep on Paul man.

ht nostr:npub1ak5kewf6anwkrt0qc8ua907ljkn7wm83e2ycyrpcumjvaf2upszs8r0gwg

Frankly I'm not sold on the whole Saul/Paul conversion.

Sounds like a cover story to infiltrate, hijack, and redirect off course the Christ movement.

Salvation is an alchemy term. It bears the same root word as dissolve.

This is a reference to multiple things.

It is a reference to what Christians would be most familiar with as "born again".

On the Tree of Life of Kabbalah, it is represented by the hidden Sephirah called Da'ath. Note how morphologically similar death and Da'ath are. That's important. Very important.

It corresponds with what is mischaracterized as "jinn possession" in Islam.

It corresponds with Gnosis in the Gnostic traditions.

It corresponds with the Phoenix rising from its own ashes.

It corresponds with what some call "the dark night of the soul" during which time the neophyte is stripped of that which they never truly were...of the trappings that became attached to them prior to the awakening.

It also corresponds quite literally to chemistry because the Egyptians were manufacturing various chemicals in the buildings that are still standing today. Look into the work of Geoffrey Drumm (Land of Chem). HIs work suggests with plenty of hard evidence vetted by professional chemists and archaeochemists and whatnot, that the Egyptians were making, amongst other chemicals, hydrochloric acid and sulfuric acid.

Do you know what you need to make Epsom salts out of basalt? Hydrochloric acid and sulfuric acid.

They were using Epsom salts in sarcophagi as sensory deprivation chambers to induce theta neural oscillations because those can trigger spiritual awakenings. This is why grounding is important. It's the rhythm entrainment of the body and aura to the earth's Schumann resonance. This is why lotus position meditation with root chakra on the ground is effective. This is why caves were part of the Eleusinian mysteries. This is why hypogeums were a thing. This is why baptism is a thing. Grounding. Rhythm entrainment.

This is hard science bro. I'm not playing with some normie arguments here.

None of that has anything to do with the point I made,

or that Paul made in Corinthians.

So you think that the importance that the Socratic method places on definition of terms is overbought?

As a mathematician I'll disagree. Definitions are important. You used a word that has a lot baked into it and I'm very sure you didn't know most or all of that stuff because you're a unitraditionalist.

👍

Tldr? Fellow torah guy?

I'm going to need to brush up on both my Aramaic and my Koine Greek to contribute to this thread...stay humble my friends.

And stack sats.

It warms my heart to watch young people debate Christian theology this deeply. The world is healing. 🙏 God bless both of you. We are all brothers in Christ.